The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The earth is a big ole ball.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,823 times Debate No: 84267
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (33)
Votes (0)




I would like someone who believes the earth is a ball, to prove it. And not by showing me nasatans fish eye lens photography, or image "compilations", not the old "I saw a curve through my curved window of a plane." not by saying I saw a ship sail away and the bottom disappeared first crap, this is due to the fact the we cannot see infinitely, and of course atmosphere.
We are not on a ball spinning 1000 miles per hour all while holding a few trillions of gallons of water perfectly flat. Inertia is one thing (travelling in a car going 60 miles per hour, you only feel it during accelerating and decelerating) but if you start from the front of a train and travel to the back, it will be less of a struggle than going the other way.
Amateurs are starting to do balloon and rocket can launches with surprising results.
I've watched GPS tracked planes disappear when crossing oceans in the southern hemisphere. Why?
Why is Antarctica totally off limits to oil companies, when only a few species of wildlife exist? Those guys would drill through live fetuses if there was enough oil involved, and nobody would stop them! Why wouldn't planes fly nose down instead of perfectly horizontally? If the earth spins at 1,000 miles per hour, and a plane flys with the spin at 500 miles per hour. Would the plane, flying independently of the earth's spin, ever make it to its destination? Wouldn't it be easier for all flights to go against the earth dpin, even if it meant going aound the earth. The flat earth model is round, with Antarctica acting like a boundary holding all the water in. The north pole is in the middle of the disc, and, being magnetic, flying away from this point in any direction will take you south. Flying east to west will take you around the disc. Search for an image of the United nation's symbol/flag, this is a real representation of the earth. Gravity is a lie, you can't have a force pulling that much water against centripical force, and not pull the boat to the center. Remember it's spinning at 1,000 miles per hour. The sun is only a few thousand miles away as is the moon.
They appear to be the same size because they are. The moon is not reflecting the warm light of the sun, but is its own source of light. Do you trust authority? How many lies are they going to feed you? Just look at NASA's logo. I leave you with the fact that the Bible is a flat earth bible.


Firstly, I would like to Clarify - I do not believe that the Earth is a 'Big ole ball.' - but a Globe; Although I feel that is what the Instigator is meaning, I still felt compelled to clarify.

Also, would you like to address each query you raised here? Or are we focusing on the "big ole ball" part?

I would also like to add that regardless of your personal wishes, the fact that we have photography and "Image compilations" and the 'old' "I saw a curve through my curved window of a plane" - They are still accepted facts in the scientific community, on these precepts alone, I believe that this debate is rendered moot, though I will continue to debate with you regardless. People who have had time to think of the right words to make aspersions to fact without irrefutable proof can always make things sound strange. (example : The myth that 'dogs cannot look up' - own a dog and hold something above them while telling them not to jump, and the answer is right there).

I refute your claim that we are not a ball(Globe) spinning 1000 miles per hour while holding water perfectly still - Can you please tell me exactly where this perfectly still mass of liquid is located? BoP is on the instigator for claims like this.
I CAN assure you - if you are referring to the Oceans around the world as 'Perfectly Flat" - then you probably should sail sometime before claiming this - I myself have been scared close to defecating (Hey, I was less than 12) - and those were referred to as 'small' swells - only about 12 feet waves or so. The currents that flow around the world are as a majority, underneath the water - and will constantly 'churn' the water, mixing the hot/cold water, mixing minerals and assisting aquatic animals through their migratory routes.

If you are referencing flat waters in a more stationary body of water - such as lakes, islands or ponds - then I have a question to ask you - You reference cars in your claim, so I feel safe to assume that you have been inside one at one point in your life. When you were driving in the car, did you ever take water with you ?
Water in a car that is travelling at speeds greater that 1mph will not be affected, as the water is technically moving at the same speeds as the vehicle - If you were to apply the brakes heavily on the car, or alternatively rapidly increase acceleration - the water will most certainly experience a shift, usually in the form of on your lap/front window. Water travelling outside of a car will most certainly experience something different - however who drives with water on their roof, and expect to keep it?

Within the context of the worlds mass of liquid - such as oceans, lakes, rivers - pretty much all of them - They are currently in the 'car' (I.e. The Earth) - Their 'cups' are the spaces that it has successfully settled itself into, usually via rain. Those vessels of water are moving with the 'car' - and they are not affected as in actuality the water is moving at exactly the same speed. A joking representation of if the earth was to stop moving suddenly :

GPS Tracking along the hemispheres are affected by a myriad of issues, let alone the Satellite coverage that may be missed when this happens. I will await confirmation if you wish to proceed with this, however I have strong evidence to support my claims.

The moon is not its' own source of light - It is 100% reflecting the light from the Sun and from surrounding (I use 'Surrounding' loosely here) stars, even during night time - Misconception with no method of proving what is correct has caused this to actually be under discussion.
Source :

With regards to boats being sucked underwater with Gravity - I just...... No. It does not do this.
Boats hulls are specifically designed to be Buoyant (i.e. Floating on water), Having a un-buoyant (Referred to as having a *negative* buoyancy), the boat would not float, the craft would not sail past the dock you unloaded it off in the first place, Suggesting Gravity would somehow divert the intentional purpose of a working boat (Floating on water) - then I would blame the creator of the craft, as it most certainly is not a boat/ship - and it being sucked underwater with *gravity* is completely debunked. (I'd check for holes in the Hull before I believe Gravity had a hand in sinking it)

I hope I have helped if this is an honest debate, otherwise I look forward to your response.

Sources :
Ocean Waves and their details :

Buoyancy :
Debate Round No. 1


It is not my "personal wishes" that most footage above a certain height is shot through a fisheye lens and any educated person can evaluate the footage and see. In the famous Red Bull video, the earth actually curved outward, I have many video references to back my claims.
I never stated that water was held "perfectly still". I said flat, and no this doesn't not mean faceless or currentless, it only means if you hold a ruler to the sea horizon, the measurement doesn't lie, and in no experiment ever has water some anything but settle flat. That's real science.
Speaking of real science, you cannot compare a ball, or globe covered in water to as glass of water in a car, a soaked tennis ball however, when spun will exhibit centripical force and the water will escape at the center or equator the fastest. I don't know about you, but I've seen a few full moons during the day, wouldn't that be nearly impossible, if the sun is 93million miles away, and the moon were on the same side of the globe as the sun was, it would mostly produce a new moon or close to it.
I see you failed to recognize the idea of gravity we are being given and how I am perceiving the amount of force it requires. The earth is said to spin at 1,000 mph, that's at the equator. The top and bottom of this sphere would not be moving fast, but only spinning in place at the poles correct? So if gravity is uniform on earth that would mean it would take more force at the equator to keep things "stuck "to it that higher or lower in the parallels. So in short I should weigh a considerable but more at the pole(s) than at the equator. I would be willing to bet you haven't done a whole lot of research on the idea that is was flat. Trust me I've been searching for definitive proof of either.
Also please explain in the official photos of earth where are all the thousands of satellites? Also, degreasio recently came out and said the earth was not a blue marble as the official photos depict, but an oblong spheroid, I think was the term, sure looked like a ball to me.


Zarium forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Since pro has yet to provide any proof through experimentation, or observation that either gravity exists(other than what goes up must come down) or the earth is a sphere, I will address arguments in the comments section. At what size does gravity take effect? Planet size only? If so, were taking someone else's word for it and is non- provable. As for eratosthenes' experiment, this would also be true if the sun was much closer than he thought.


Apologies for the delay, I have lost a debate and missed this round due to Christmas/Birthday/Work near the end of the year, Perhaps they should add a 'Pause debate' so that when things pop up, it can be easily resumed after a pre-agreed time.

However, I have returned and I will address your Round 2 Concerns. Of which I would like to politely point out had very little reference to the stated point of the Earth being a 'big ole ball'.

Clearly you have done your reading/Youtube-ing, as the Comments section can clearly describe, So I will disregard the information that I can bring from the Internet and tackle you with some basic common Knowledge/Logic.

You state a tennis ball soaked in water spinning will flick out the water instead of retain it - 100% correct. Now let us take some time to equate the two separate objects. and build up your experimentation from there -

1. Tennis ball - A Hollowed out rubber ball with fibers covering the top, typically fluorescent green/yellow in colour

2. THE PLANET EARTH - a gigantic mass of compacted rocks, minerals, water, heat, magnetism - surrounded by an ozone layer that refracts the majority of rays floating this space.
Earth (diameter) 12,756 km

Now if we were to cover the Tennis ball the same way that the Earth is covered in water, it would be minuscule to the amount you are describing, Rotating the ball at the proportional rate that the earth is spinning (Not just spinning as fast as you can spin it), the outcome is greatly different - I can assure you that.

The earth as has been mutually accepted by the scientific community as a mass of compacted earth, layer upon layer, upon Crust, upon Mantel upon a Core. The core consists of a highly volatile combination of searing heat, and metal/molten rock and other minerals - This generates the magnetic field by the rotation of the earth.
Gravity is generated by any large object moving at 'fast' speeds.
Evidence that it is generate-able is a Gyroscope, They utilize high speeds to create their own gravitational fields.

Now, let us combine these two things - Mass + High speed movement = Gravity.
With the Mass not particularly going anywhere with relations to the earth, and the High speed being a constant, the following makes logical sense :
Gravity + Mass + High Speed = Globe.

Say we were to say that the earth is not actually a globe shape, the simple fact of it spinning, compressing the different layers on the earth, and the heat and other forces that are generated by the earth, affects the Earth, making its Globe shape.

Please note that I have always maintained a Globe shape, not a Sphere. Sphere's indicate a clean facet and a uniform shape, I refer to however the shape a planet makes under such internal forces it exerts.
From all accounts, I will never rule out that theoretically the earth should be a more 'flatter' shape, by all chances if we could isolate the planet and see what it would do - after a millennium it will probably flatten out a bit, however we are not debating on what could be or what equates to what - We are debating on the fact that the earth is a Globe/'Big ole ball'.

You say that objects are only enforced by gravity due to the force it exudes :
"I see you failed to recognize the idea of gravity we are being given and how I am perceiving the amount of force it requires. "
I Counter-argue with the accusation that you seem to fail to understand what Gravity is. Gravity is not something created knowingly (as far as we can prove), that keeps us trapped on this mass of land, it is what has happened when a large amount of mass spins, it attracts other masses to this movement. It is something that is generated without a singular thing brought to mind, it just is - and whatever has happened because of it, just is as well.

Gravity is not a universal right of all subjects walking, flying or swimming through this world we call Earth - this is a force that we have to battle each and every single day - I will use myself as an example for this - I have been facing the earth's gravity for just over 23 years now, and I have grown very, VERY accustomed to fighting it, so much so that I must now do other activities to strengthen myself. However this does not mean I no longer take the strength of Gravity lightly, Which is precisely why you do not see any news articles about me jumping off buildings or bridges with my makeshift wooden wings.

Gravity, when taken in globally, as in the entire force of 9.8m/s/s over the entirety of the Globe, it is a serious amount of force. However we each only face what we put out - i.e. a 100kg man will need to battle 9.8m/s/s worth of force for his 100kg's - However a mouse will only fight the gravity affecting his little light body.

I can see you have disregarded my debate topics regarding the Car, by stating that a Car and a globe.
If you re-read my arguments, you will see that I refer to the car as in the states of a Vessel in transit - I.e. A planet flowing through space - AS the planet has its own Ozone layer - it is metaphorically a 'car' with the windows wound up, maybe just a crack left open (Thanks global warming! -.-).
Please re-read the statements and the theory behind that with this new perception, then choose to disregard the information, And I really hope you don't reply saying the above information isn't relevant to the debate - I have structured my argument into using examples that relate to the subject - please do not take credence into the 'vessel's' I use to explain my concepts - they are not to be taken literally.

Also, unsure exactly what you refer to as the Second sun option after that -
"I don't know about you, but I've seen a few full moons during the day, wouldn't that be nearly impossible, if the sun is 93million miles away, and the moon were on the same side of the globe as the sun was, it would mostly produce a new moon or close to it."

The Moon can be in the Sky while the sun is out, as they are separate objects, and one is revolving around another object - However the light can still be reflected from Distant stars, and that the Sun's rays refract from the Ozone layer as well, Logically I can deduce that at least SOME of the rays will bounce from the ozone, from the Moon, and then back to the earth - This also will explain why when this happens, the moon will appear opaque while the sun is up.

I seriously implore my opponent to use his next round to clarify his stance, as if I am battling the entire Illuminati conspiracy in this debate, a little fore-warning would be greatly appreciated. (I.e. Debate on Earth's shape -> Gravity > Moon/Sun > ??? )
Debate Round No. 3


If you came into this world and they never taught globular heliocentrism in school as they do now, if you just walked outside and looked around, especially at sea LEVEL, you would assume that the place you were living was relatively if not mostly flat. If you took Nasa out of the equation, gravity, as described by pro wouldn't exist, with gravity comes the globe, the 93billion mile sun and every thing related to this model. In short, no personal observation or experiments can prove that part of"science" even exists, it's become a religion of sorts, we're supposed to believe it, though we can't physically prove or see it. It simply does not exist. Governments are known liars, the space frontier has been monopolized. We have to take their word for it? You really think if we went to the moon, they wouldn't be charging a few hundred thousand dollars for a seat to visit it by now? In no experiment no matter what the medium whether it be tennis ball or a bowling ball, has water ever made a globe around anything. In short t


So the debate has apparently moved to NASA and what we can perceive. (Debate on Earth's shape -> Gravity > Moon/Sun > NASA/Perception ) - This has been a Pro has done a poor job at maintaining the current debate, and has instead tried to disorientate their opposition by throwing as many variables as possible to try and make us lose track of what we are debating here.

What we are debating is proof that Earth is in fact a globe in shape, not 'flat' or whatever other variations you may have for this word.

Currently your evidence appears to be that your sight of the land is flat, therefore it is flat; and that NASA is an untrustworthy source of information.

I have since gone through previous debates you currently have open - ALL state that the earth is flat, and all evidence that is provided against you is left hanging in the wind, you do not openly accept this new information, instead moving through to another conspiracy that you appear to hope will confuse them enough to leave you an opening to wiggle out from.
Debating the same topic is fine, but disregarding all evidence in each debate, to spear-head your propaganda is ridiculous to say the least, I have lost respect for you as an opponent.

To Debunk your last message, which I sympathized with initially that it had cut you off short, however now I am not feeling so Charitable, so I will continue with the debate from the information you left standing.

"if you just walked outside and looked around, especially at sea LEVEL, you would assume that the place you were living was relatively if not mostly flat."
Correct, and looking up one would ASSUME that the sky is blue, perhaps even a mental leap to say the sky is actually water! (Water is blue - Sky is blue, ergo SKY IS WATER)
I can easily debunk this claim, firstly by re-iterating that you even conceded that this would only be apparent if you were at SEA level, i.e. - as far down as you can go without seeing the entire *picture* - Raise the elevation, your sight increases exponentially, Higher again and you can see even farther, at which point the curvature of the earth is apparent.
In the above link, you can see an image, which shows that at sea level, the earth would most certainly would seem flat - however elevate it, and the cross in visions are clear indications that the plain is not flat. A curve, granted it moves on infinitely, will always end at the beginning, making a 'Circle' - Basic logic will deduce that the earth is shaped, and not at all a flat surface, no matter how many times you tell yourself.

Your claim on NASA are irrelevant, Especially around the concept of Gravity :
"If you took Nasa out of the equation, gravity, as described by pro wouldn't exist, with gravity comes the globe, the 93billion mile sun and every thing related to this model. In short, no personal observation or experiments can prove that part of"science" even exists"
False. NASA May have provided us with pictures of the earth - however they are not the originators of the idea of Gravity.
I will provide a link below this that shows where the first written account on someone discovering gravity (Please note, they have nothing to do with NASA, and were actually in Greece when this happened - WAAAAY away from America). The link below also contains mathematical equations, which are universally agreed is the ultimate truth in context of science and Astrology.

In Summation, I have tired of this "debate", as I have been angered greatly.
I joined this debate in the hopes of a healthy argument, with no personal feelings/attachments to the subject affecting the debate, so we can objectively view the information itself - I am not going to delve further on the drivel that has been spewed forth by one who refuses to even acknowledge another person's heartfelt attempts at proving their point of a debate, and will inevitably steamroll into the next round with more bogus claims which have no "credible" source apart from Youtube, and will likely ignore whatever outcome this debate has, instead creating another stream of debates on the EXACT same topic, going over the EXACT same problems, receiving the EXACT same answers (Within context, spelling is not exact).

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein
Debate Round No. 4


Lol I've angered you?(maybe you thought this would be an easy win) I've got a new word for ya bro: cognitive dissonance. Through this whole debate you've offered no proof at all that the earth is a globe, and the finale is the best, a diagram saying that you can see better from farther up because you can see the other side of a sphere? If that's the case, wouldn't everything be leaning away from you? If you couldn't see an object from the ground because of the curve and you climbed up high enough to where you could see over the curve, You would see the curve, but no one ever has. And you won't, no matter how high you go the horizon will always be eye level and flat, except in the cute little diagram which shows a tree sitting at a 45" angle away from the viewer. Ever went to the top floor of a skyscraper and looked out and seen any buildings or anything for that matter leaning away from you? I've offered several resources and brought up a great many proofs, all related, and all pointing at the same ending. It's not improbable, the earth is flat. You should take a few minutes and watch any documentary on the subject, that is if you're as open minded as you say.
As far as gravity, people notice that things going down is not called gravity, everything does not go down, its simply called density and how things work, objects with greater density will drop below things with less density, and vice versa. But NOWHERE except when Nasa says so, will anything move or be attracted to the center of a spinning ball. First the magical unseen force will cause things to orbit around it, others it will attract and make stick to it? Why hasn't the moon crashed into the earth, gravity is supposed to be several times stronger in earth than the moons, yet the moon pulls the earth's tides? If I jump high enough(against gravity, why wouldn't I take off on an unending orbit? I resisted earth's pull.Instead of believing the religion of outer space science which we can never prove, use some of that common sense God gave you. One last chance to offer some real proof of a globe!


Hahahaha - If you believe my anger has been caused by me not having an 'easy win', then you and I are debating for different reasons. I relish a good challenge, I want my perception rocked, my presumed foundations ripped out from underneath me so my perceptions open, and thus I will grow. I have learnt more in the arguments I have lost, than those I won, and for that - I cherish losing.

You appear to simply be shooting the same redressed quotes, pithy responses and your perception is about that of a blinkered horse - I am angry that I thought we were going to have a good and tough debate - This did not occur, each attempt you have made to 'debunk' my counter arguments are to respond with a metaphorical "Nuh-uhh" and then changing the goal posts of this argument, and yet you still say that you are 'Winning'.

AS stated before, I am tired of this 'debate', There was no knowledge or insight to be gained from this endeavor. You sprout hypocrisies left, right and center - and seem immune to any logic pointed out to you. I cannot offer real proof of a globe to you without somehow growing to ridiculous sizes and physically showing you - Mathematically, logically and deductively I can show you that this is what it is, and i can show you pictures (which you will subsequently dismiss). Those citations and sources could have been placed in my debates - If I had done this or not, the outcome would be the same - I have evidence of 3 past debates that prove this. Honestly I am now glad I chose not to do this, as that would have been effort wasted on my behalf.

I am not writing this as a vent of my anger, I am now cutting my losses and hope to try and implore with you to change your debate methods, This is neither a constructive nor informative debate, I had hoped that either we could discuss if it is a globe or not, how the earth is a globe (or not), and perhaps broaden our understandings mutually, but I see you prefer to build your cases from Youtube videos, where ONE person has found ONE correlation that they, and now you, venomously protect by attempting to psychologically unseat a person's foundation - i.e. referring to science as a 'space religion'.

I hope now you understand the irony of your statement there - You want to disprove what you believe to be someone's belief, and they fall back on some un-provable statistic - Such as "Gravity" - or perhaps even something like "The bible is said it was written by god, it has to be real" - I can attest it is very annoying when you have a subject that cannot be changed because of anothers' opinion - no matter how you try - it must be double that if you have an opponent willing to accept new facts, and still failed to change their mind.
That last round I was still open, there was the possibility that a ray of light could come forth from you and clear all my silly aspersions and trust of fact, logic and mathematics. The chances were slim, but I still came to the table ready to change my mind, after reading what you wrote that went straight out of the window.

As a last little bit to show you your flawed reasoning - you say jumping means that you resisted the pull of the earth's gravity? I ask you - how long did your jump go for, and did Gravity stop affecting you while you were in the Air?
Unending torrents of water coming out of a drain, will not be blocked by a single dust particle trying to block it for a second, your logic of "I jumped so Gravity wont affect me anymore" is flawed.
Jumping is caused by your muscles exerting more force than your weight to leave an foundation object - When in the air, the power of your jump is capped at whatever forces you were able to generate while on that foundation.
Gravity is a constant - 9.8 m/s/s in the direction towards the source - i.e. down (Perception based here, So enough of that whole "But what is down?")
Say your jump was worth 15 m/s/s - after 2 seconds, gravity would have capped your ascension, and then brought you crashing back to the mass, which is when your toes touched that flat, flat earth.

Conclusion :
Based upon logic and basic mathematics, I have been able to show that there are clear fundamentals that can be used to prove to oneself that the earth is in fact a Globe.
Using basic observation, coupled with previous knowledge with the effects of gravity, I have been able to show that although we have water on our 'surfaces' - the earth can still be another shape than a plain.
However somehow my opponent believes that his word of "That is just a lie, and NASA is an evil corporation and all gravity is therefor a lie" somehow debunks my claim.
My opponent here appears to have forgotten basic logic in the fact that "Because Gravity has a hand in X, it must solely be gravity's fault when I cannot understand something, or if it doesn't work" - as shown with his Water on a tennis ball concept. IF he had paused to remember that the continents we are currently inhabiting around the world are nothing more than the mountainous caps that arise from the earth - the water is kilometers deep and there are millions of caves, crevasses and recesses that water has already flooded, its just hit the brim of its capacity at our shores.

Another is assuming that because we say that gravity comes from X source and is *universally* agreed, this somehow has become a brainwashing endeavor and that we will not accept his point of view until we realize how 'controlled' we are... We are making this claim and asserting it because all evidence we have points to this being the answer!
If tomorrow we were to prove that all gravity is generated by Pandas, then guess what - That is what i will be debating to *protect* if someone was to say it was something else (And a noticeable increase in Panda conservation activities!) - WE NEED FACTS - not just youtube videos that are structured to purely point out the creators ideology - We have no way of verifying the sources credentials, we cannot verify who it is apart from username : "Eric Dubay"
The written sources you have provided (Not videos with people talking over a series of images) - they are all from biased sources - Institutions of Religion and 'scientific' that base their perceptions from the bible - which has not been *universally* accepted as an authority on current issues.

I have no further interest in this debate - such as the points and whatnot - but hopefully I have some people thinking the same thoughts as I do regarding my opponent, and can at least empathize with my decision to cease actively debating with them, I have better things to do with my time than what this debate boiled down too.
Debate Round No. 5
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zarium 2 years ago
Veil all the insults you want, but they haven't found out NASA has done anything yet, so we are not able to have this discussion.

Evidence that is greater than youtube or cult websites and my position on this will change, until then you are simply just a stupid person who can put words together well.

You refuse to acknowledge common logic and mathmatical equations to harp on about what YOU want to talk about, it's honestly like the same when i meet a 10 year old spoilt brat who is convinced that his shoes are cooler, and you MUST feel anguish for the fact this is!

Disregard all the common sense and knowledge that makes SENSE presented to you all you wish, but don't dare presume the arrogance to belittle others and myself because we don't just agree with what you believe, simply because we question the almighty power of youtube - which somehow has caught your blind faith. Not everyone is you, some people actually have different thoughts and opinions, you need to anticipate their set requirements to change this if you have any hope of convincing.... pretty much anybody.

But carry on, flood us with more links - confuse the hell out of anyone you speak to here, and maybe you will get enough votes to 'win' - best of luck to that.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
If we found out today that NASA fakes everything this would be treasonous, and the billions would stop pouring in, I like you man, but when it comes to logic, well I like you man.
Posted by Zarium 2 years ago
"I do not support everything Mr. Dubay at represents, I only find his insight into personal observations and common sense ideas about the flat earth."

So your entire argument is structured upon others "Insights and personal observations and common sense"?

You have been accosted with multiple - nay, a Plethora - of information, you have been deluged with maths, both basic and hard, you have been shown images that shows via commons sense that height modifies perspective and the fact that someone standing higher can see things that others at sea level cannot represents the curvature of the earth. These are our personal insights, and Common sense ideas, The only difference is we can prove it too.

Yet you choose to still believe a series of 2 hour youtube videos that state that NASA is liars, and that oblivious to Newton's concept of gravity, that logic shows that to believe their precept is to believe that the his concept was somehow organised by NASA (Despite the fact this idea was centuries before the corporation, let alone the Country of USA was developed enough to start slandering NASA for their lies!)

Your reasoning for your argument has astounded me - Not in that it is difficult to believe or understand, but the fact that you have become paranoid that others want to withhold information over that long a time. Many religious figures maintained the flat earth because that spoke direct lies to their prophets statements, But that was to maintain control of the populous for selfish reasons (Note the Catholic churches almost eclipsing all others as the largest land owners in the UK centuries ago).

What does NASA get for lying to us about the Moon and Space?? - Fair enough they may have done it to save face, however now it is past that, we can most definitely build in space and reach the frontiers of our area, let alone that the formula's and theories to prove the shape of the earth existed centuries before your reason for not believing it even existed! (a
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
I do not support everything Mr. Dubay at represents, I only find his insight into personal observations and common sense ideas about the flat earth. If that was all you got out of the documentary, I can only be glad you gave it a shot, if you really did. Or did you just Google something bad against him. You act like I worship him lol. There are more than just a few documentaries and documented experiments to watch that that I'm about 2 months into researching it, and there are lots more proofs of geocentric flat earth, that heliocentric balls flying around at nearly the speed of light and not knowing it. But you say you are a man of science so let's try something and you can see for yourself, or dismiss it and go back to sleep. First check this out, note the time and day in the description of the video. Unfortunately they used a gopro camera which uses a fish eye lens which is why the horizon appears to wave like a flag in the wind, so we can't really tell what the horizon looks like, but that's not my point. If you go to or whichever it is that let's you know where the moon is in relation to the earth, see where it's at, and watch the rocket launch again, but look at the sky after the rocket hits apex. Pretty small and far away looking huh?
Posted by kingofd20 2 years ago
I want you to know Edlvsjd, your precious Eric Dubay also believes that Hitler was right and in the Zion Conspiracy. Just saying please look at the person who is spouting off your source material.

I have trouble watching these so called documentaries that are two hours of one person talking. They are long winded opinion videos but not documentaries, which actually document something from more perspectives than the person sitting in their lounge wear, and blasting the screen with picture they found on a Google image search.

Zarium on the other hand not only gave very diverse sources for his side of the argument, but also gave ones that have experiments that can be tested, them models created that allow us to test with different variables then still come to the same conclusion. I try not to be hard on FE'ers like yourself as I am a man of science who believes that we should always try to go against the grain, and break from the establishment, but only if to come to the correct conclusion using proper methods, and tools.
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
No voters eh?
Posted by Edlvsjd 2 years ago
Don't get me started on the heavenly waters and the firmament with flood hates to hold the back, where did all that water from the great flood come from?
No votes have been placed for this debate.